Kitchener and Waterloo Fraud Lawyer

In Canada, fraud offences are categorized based on the type of fraud committed as well as the value of the fraud. For example, the Criminal Code contains fraud offences including fraudulently selling real estate, transportation by fraud, identity theft, and falsifying employment records. Where the type of fraud committed is specific to one of these areas, or another specific offence in the Code, the accused will be charged with that specific offence. In other situations, where the fraudulent activity does not fit into one of these specific categories list in the Code, the accused will be charged with either fraud over $5,000 or fraud under $5,000, depending on the value of the fraud.

Donich Law has over 10 years of experience defending various types of fraud including insurance fraud, fraud over and under $5,000, identity theft, and falsifying employment records. In many cases, those who commit fraud will be charged with more than one offence. For example, an individual who uses a fake ID to cash a fraudulent cheque may be charged with fraud over or under $5,000 (depending on the value of the cheque) as well as identity theft for use of the fake ID.

In 2013, the Firm represented a client alleged to have attempted to deposit a fraudulent bank draft in the case of R. v. A.N. [2013]. The client was charged with several counts of fraud, uttering forged documents, and possession of property obtained by crime. The accused was reported to police after he attempted to deposit a bank draft issued by a publicly traded company into his personal bank account. It was alleged that the bank draft had not been issued to him, however upon further investigation the Firm discovered that the accused was totally unaware the funds were stolen. The Firm engaged in lengthy Crown pre-trial negotiations with the Crown, presenting the evidence discovered and secured a withdrawal of the charges.

In 2022, the Firm represented a client accused of using a fake citizenship card to cash a $40,000 money order in R. v. R.A. [2022]. The accused, a second time offender, was caught with a co-accused after employees at the store where they attempted to cash the money order called police. The accused had attended the cheque cashing establishment with the co-accused, indicating she would like to cash the money order to purchase property outside of Canada. The employee was suspicious of the ID card and the money order and began asking questions. Still unsure about the transaction, the employee requested that the accused came back to the store the following day to collect the money. The following day when the accused showed up, law enforcement arrested her and her accomplice, seizing their fake ID cards. The Firm completed a significant amount of up-front work and secured the withdrawal of three of the four charges against the accused. The Firm also avoided a jail sentence, which the Crown aggressively advocated for given the value of the money order and the fact that the accused was a second time offender.

Fraud is one of the most common criminal offences in Canada. A 2020 report from Statistics Canada found that in 2018 there were 559 reports of fraud per 100,000 people in the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo metropolitan area. This rate was 47% higher than the general rate for Ontario and 39% higher than the Canadian rate. To combat this trend, the Waterloo Regional Police Service has compiled several resources designed to help educate the citizens of Kitchener on the topic of fraud and to promote prevention and awareness. Among these resources is a list of common ongoing scams.

In 2015, the Firm represented an individual who was terminated from her place of employment and arrested in R. v. S.C. [2015]. The accused, an employee at Home Sense, was charged after loss prevention staff uncovered a complex scheme to defraud the business out of over $60,000. After looking into the missing merchandise, loss prevention staff uncovered that the accused, another employee at the store and a family member of the accused had been pretending to scan items and then removing them from the store without paying. The Firm conducted an investigation of its own into the matter and found evidence to suggest the accused’s co-conspirator was the mastermind of the scheme. The Firm shifted blame onto the other suspects and resolved the matter without a criminal record.

Those who are convicted of fraud offences in Ontario and across Canada may face serious penalties. Fraud is a hybrid offence meaning the Crown can elect to prosecute the accused either by indictment or summary conviction. Which election they make will depend on a number of factors including the accused’s criminal history, when the alleged fraud occurred, and the nature and value of the fraud. More serious cases, or cases that occurred more than a year ago will be elected by indictment. Those prosecuted by indictment will face increased penalties upon conviction.

In 2018, the Firm represented a client accused of participating in a high-level fraud and money laundering scheme in R. v. Z.U. [2018]. The accused came to the attention of law enforcement during a police sting involving law enforcement from both Canada and the U.S. Investigators determined that individuals in the U.S. were scamming elderly individuals out of cash, and then converting the cash into Gold Bullion. The Gold Bullion was then shipped over the border into Canada where it was to be sold on the Canadian market. The total value of the scheme topped $1 million dollars. Some of the evidence that was collected in the U.S. it was inadmissible under Canadian law. The Firm utilized the Canadian rules of evidence to exclude the evidence, resulting in the stay of nine fraud and money laundering charges.

In 2018, the Firm represented an individual accused of being involved in a large fraud scheme targeting retail stores throughout the GTA in R. v. K.L. [2015]. The accused was charged with several fraud offences as well as conspiracy charges and attempted fraud. The accused and a co-conspirator were caught by police after allegedly attending numerous retail stores, specifically Staples and Target stores, and stealing items. The accused would then return to the stores to return the stolen product for a cash refund. Loss prevention staff became suspicious of the activity and launched an investigation into the matter. The Firm utilized various procedural issues with the case, including the Crown being unable to call certain witnesses to resolve the matter by way of withdrawal for eight fraud charges.